Prop 8

[chadk]

From www.ontheissues.org, we find oboma's positions on gay marriage look like this:

Gay Rights
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word “marriage”. (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)


Here is a quote when he was directly asked about it:

When asked to define marriage, Obama toed the holy line by nodding to man and woman, while also highlighting his own faith in nuptials, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. [Applause] Now, for me as a Christian, it's also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

Because historically, we have not defined marriage in our constitution. It's been a matter of state law. That has been our tradition. I mean, let's break it down. The reason that people think there needs to be a constitutional amendment, some people believe, is because of the concern that — about same-sex marriage. I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage, but I do believe in civil unions. I do believe that we should not — that for gay partners to want to visit each other in the hospital for the state to say, you know what, that's all right, I don't think in any way inhibits my core beliefs about what marriage are. I think my faith is strong enough and my marriage is strong enough that I can afford those civil rights to others, even if I have a different perspective or different view.

---

Oh, and I don't think dmmj was only referring to the attempted insult in that one post of yours...

Some other attempted insults (intended to bully, intimidate and turn this discussion into an emotionally based fight instead of a respectful debate) in this thread attacking anyone who feels differently than Rich on this subject:

hateful coalition
un-enlightened
non informed
blind
narrow minded
irrational
you desire to remain in the dark ages
prejudiced
ludicrous
close-minded
pointless
pissing in the wind
nonconsensual ramblings
conservative rubbish
uptight
dinosaurs
narrow and archaic views
heinous

 

[richalisoviejo]

hateful coalition
un-enlightened
non informed
blind
narrow minded
irrational
you desire to remain in the dark ages
prejudiced
ludicrous
close-minded
pointless
pissing in the wind
nonconsensual ramblings
conservative rubbish
uptight
dinosaurs
narrow and archaic views
heinous

You have done a great job of summing up your position throughout the thread.

 

[chadk]

Seriously rich. You are afraid to actually debate, so this is what you are resorting to. And I had some hope that we could actually have a reasonable discussion. Oh well. I feel bad for anyone checking in to see if this has picked back up with some substance. Sorry folks.

hateful coalition
un-enlightened
non informed
blind
narrow minded
irrational
you desire to remain in the dark ages
prejudiced
ludicrous
close-minded
pointless
pissing in the wind
nonconsensual ramblings
conservative rubbish
uptight
dinosaurs
narrow and archaic views
heinous

You have done a great job of summing up your position throughout the thread.

 

[richalisoviejo]

hateful coalition
un-enlightened
non informed
blind
narrow minded
irrational
you desire to remain in the dark ages
prejudiced
ludicrous
close-minded
pointless
pissing in the wind
nonconsensual ramblings
conservative rubbish
uptight
dinosaurs
narrow and archaic views
heinous

You have done a great job of summing up your position throughout the thread.
[/quote]

Well let’s see, the law firm I work for in Newport Beach has 30 skilled attorneys that have read every thread you posted. Not one agreed. I guess those 30 VERY skilled attorneys were wrong and you were right all along? The terminology I used was very tame compared to what others had to say lol.

I’d tell you their comments but I don’t use that kind of language.

 

[Madortoise]

I'm sorry I didn't find this thread earlier.
For me, it boils down to this: Why is it okay for one group to have a privilege (or misery) of being able to marry when it is not permitted to another group by law--and I am talking about consented adults that are not in incenstual relationship and other bull crap mentioned above.
In my profession (marriage and family therapy), I have seen tons of kids in our school system that are LGBTQ being bullied just because of who they are. I have seen ethnically minority gay man (double-wammy) developing a mental disorder with psychosis surrounding his conflicted feelings about being gay and not feeling accepted. I have counseled lesbian couple not feeling comfortable dancing together in a cruise they paid tons of money for for their special occasion because they didn't want to offend the other nice old folks enjoying themselves...a lesbian client not being able to find a mate easily as she feels coming out in public will compromise her position at work...My clients not feeling acknowledged on a daily basis for who they are because of lack of awareness in the society...My gay supervisee being given an ultimatum to get off the case for an unidentified reason. It is my observation that these people, who have been oppressed for long, either choose to fight for more inclusive society (for their soul) and/or inevitably internalize discrimination and show signs of self-denigration after a while. It gets very tiring to fight every day for your basic rights, you know.
I think we can establish that we all have a need to belong, to be aknowledged and to be a part of the greater something. If being American means something to you, would you be able to allow fellow Americans let alone a specific group of Americans to feel that they are substandard, not good enough, not able to take part? It saddens me that gay marriage is even an issue. Marriage is also about privilege and benefits beyond demonstrative symbolic union.
I appreciate this thread and Rich for starting it.